review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
One: Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason, two great comics turned into saps for a bratty kid. They've both sold themselves out in this one, worse than Pryor's character. Two: Horrible, overly sentimental script that could have been used in a Harold Lloyd movie its so cliched. Three: Choice of a black actor as the toy; the racial subtext of this is unbearable, as its never addressed. There's no message here, Pryor's part could have been played by any comedic actor. Four: That kid...I wish I could go back in time and prevent him from ever acting...that would mean movies like this one and Kid Co. might not have been made...and my childhood would have been free of their mind-warping power. So if you want to watch a couple of great comics defile themselves in a sickly sweet kiddie flick, go ahead. If you want to see them in something good, see Pryor's old standup act and Gleason in something better, like the Honeymooners.
|
negative
|
I don't even like watching those late night talk shows, but I found this one really interesting. I imagine it's probably close to the truth---it "feels" like an honest account, if that means anything. Kinda feel for the people somewhat when you watch it. A nice movie for a Saturday night.
|
positive
|
now don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd.
|
negative
|
A gruelling watch, but one of Bergman's finest films. Interesting to compare this with The Hour of the Wolf, as both feature the same lead actors as artists (or an artist and his wife) who have taken sanctuary on an island. In the earlier film it's largely inner demons that lead to von Sydows disintegrating personality (at least that's how I read it) whereas here it's very much circumstances beyond his control.<br /><br />Much has been written about the unsympathetic central characters, particularly von Sydow's. For me there are flashes of a good (if flawed) man early in the film, but one who copes badly with adversity. The flaws become all that is left as his humanity is gradually eroded by one horror after another.<br /><br />I watched A Passion (Ullmann and von Sydow on their island again) soon after this, and was amazed to recognise many of the same locations. And then there's a dream sequence...
|
positive
|
Lady in Cement - PI spoof with ole Blue Eyes.Frank Sinatra is a shamus on a houseboat in Miami in this rarely funny "comedy".Burdened by an annoying and repetitious Hugo Montenegro score and bunch of misfiring punchlines this 1968 flick just never rises above slightly too bawdy to be on TV made for television movie status.Dan Blocker is effective in the Mike Mazurski/Ted De Corsia big galoot role and Raquel Welch should thank her personal trainer.The only thing that makes the DVD worth keeping or seeing is the collection of cheesy trailers for Welch flicks like Bandolero,Fantastic Voyage , Mother ,Jugs & Speed and Myra Breckinridge.Even if you get the DVD-skip the predictable movie and go for the trailer library in the special features.Besides tons of mysoginistic asides-Sinatra lisps @ the homosexual owners of the local Go-Go bar.A relic that needs to be put back in the time capsule. D
|
negative
|
This is the type of movie where it actually hurts to acknowledge that it really, really sucks. I normally sanctify stuff like this! Early 70's grindhouse flicks with scrumptious sounding titles and a schlocky low-budget atmosphere usually ROCK. "House of Seven Corpses" appeared to dispose of even more trumps, since the cast is a gathering of great genre veterans (including John Carradine, John Ireland and Faith Domergue) and the filming locations (the titular house, the graveyard) are obviously very expedient for a gloomy tale of terror. The film opens with its absolute greatest and most hauntingly memorable sequences, though sadly enough they're the only ones that qualify as such. The credits are a splendid montage, complete with freakish color-effects and eerie freeze-frames, illustrating how the titular house received its notorious reputation. The last seven owners were mysteriously murdered here and the credits montage gleefully exhibits their final moments. Someone falls down the balcony screaming, a lady drowns in her bathtub, and another female body hangs dangling from the ceiling and four more macabre tableaux. Needless to say the house is cursed and the awkward behavior of t caretaker Mr. Price (Carradine) only fortify this reputation. In other words, the house forms the ideal turf for the acclaimed director Eric Hartman (John Ireland) to shoot his satanic horror film project. The film-within-film structure is what mainly causes "House of Seven Corpses" to be so boring and uneventful. A lot of movie-material is wasted on crew members putting films spools in the camera and dragging around cables or even worse Faith Domergue and Charles Macaulay portraying horridly intolerable actor stereotypes. The plot finally gets a little interesting (only a little, mind you) when one of the characters reads some lines from an occult book and accidentally awakes a rotting corpse in the backyard. The asthmatic (judging by the noises he produces) zombie slowly heads for the house and kills the entire movie crew, reminiscent of how the previous seven turned into corpses. After a running time of approximately 60 minutes, the film suddenly turns from humdrum into just plain weird and confusing. I'm still unsure whether the final twist has to do with the concept of reincarnation or just coincidence and all the remaining characters suddenly seem to go undergo vast mental transformations shortly before they die, for some reason. I honestly regret confirming "House of Seven Corpses" is a pretty dreadful movie. The locations and scenery are gloomy chilling, but not nearly used to full effect and there's a serious lack of gruesome bloodshed. Numerous low-budgeted 70's gems were stunningly gross, so the lack of financial means is no excuse and the film-within-film murders really don't count. Even the always-reliable veteran stars deliver hammy performances and Harrison's direction is completely uninspired. Not recommended, unless you think the zero cool four-and-a-half minute playing opening credits montage is worth the effort of purchasing a copy.
|
negative
|
Any screen adaptation of a John Grisham story deserves a mainstream Hollywood approach, and Robert Altman is about the last director I would go to for a mainstream take on anything. But this southern-fried pot-boiler is pretty good. While it's not among Altman's best, it certainly isn't among the films he's made that leave you scratching your head and wondering what he was thinking.<br /><br />Altman had tipped his hat to the mystery thriller with noir overtones before, in his 1973 film "The Long Goodbye." "The Gingerbread Man" is nowhere near as good as that film, but it holds up fairly well on its own. Kenneth Branagh is a cocky attorney who finds himself framed for murder after he gets involved with a client (Embeth Davidtz) who has enlisted his help in protecting her from her cuckoo father (Robert Duvall). The film is set in Savannah, Georgia during the approach of a tropical storm, which lends the film an oppressive atmosphere that I very much liked. The twists and turns toward the film's end become clunkier and clunkier, and Altman proves himself to be not all that adept at staging shootouts, but overall the film is not a bad addition to Altman's canon.<br /><br />Also starring Robert Downey, Jr., Daryl Hannah, Tom Berenger and Famke Janssen.<br /><br />Grade: B
|
positive
|
Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.<br /><br />Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.<br /><br />Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way "upatz." He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as "media." He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.<br /><br />Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from "Antigone," which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.<br /><br />That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, "I hate her." She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in "Repulsion." The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.<br /><br />A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.<br /><br />The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.<br /><br />Worth it.
|
positive
|
This quirky and watchable film is the story of a deluded dentist who starts out on his mission or crusade to fight tooth decay in the back and beyonds of Patagonia. Hailing from Northern Ireland, via New Jersey, the main character, Fergus, sees his crusade as a mission of mass importance and approaches it with all the enthusiasm, vitality, discipline and attention to detail one would expect from a trained dentist. Which adds to the hilarity, as his grand plans unravel and gradually fall to pieces as he goes from disaster to debacle in the Patagonian outback on the back of a customised motor bike or his, er, mobile dental unit. We never get to meet his wife, nor the rich philanthropist who is sponsoring the ill-fated mission, but, we do get a solid display from Lewis. Fans of his work will not be disappointed with his very believable performance as the deluded dentist who is gallantly adored by the, innocent but sexy, 18 year old female lead who tags along on for the *ahem* ride.<br /><br />This film is not for everyone and I can understand why it wasn't pushed by the suits. It's a low budget, sometimes charming, always disarming, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable film that sets out with low expectations and almost succeeds.
|
negative
|
A friend and I went to see this movie. We have opposite opinions about Fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following: the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened, no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. If you are truly looking to learn about another countries history, watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you won't be able step away from your bubble. And those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they don't belong are really abusing their power. To make it even worse, the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the CIA with Fujimori's regime. She decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to Peruvians. But this is not surprising because, both, the director and the CIA are violating the sovereignty of Peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course.<br /><br />If the director was really interested in helping Peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. In any case there are numerous Peruvian made documentaries, films and books about the subject. Such include "Ojos Que No Ven", "Dias de Santiago", "Montesinos-Fujimori: Las Dos Caras de la Misma Moneda", "Montesinos: Poderoso Caballero", etc. The director of the "Fall of Fujimori" should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations.
|
negative
|
Lost holds something interesting for everyone. You can say an awfully lot about this series, and an awfully lot has been said, so I won't be the one to spell it all out for you again. Just read the persons who loved it, and you'll know why you want to watch it. The nice thing about this series is that its totally new. There are not much movies -and even fewer- series based on the theme of only suspense, but Lost lives up to the theme with pride. Its all about the unexplained and if you combine that with an exotic location, nice plot twists, an excellent cast and a good format (present and past combined in single episodes) you'll have a series in which every episode is a story on its own but part of a greater telling. You want to have all the insights of the characters, you want to see the overall picture and you'll want to know where the writers are taking you. The result of that is that its a series which does not let you go. On a more sceptic note, the series went under a bit in season 2, probably due to its own success. It is well known that Lost was only written for one season originally and when the overwhelming success followed, the writers were overwhelmed too. In my opinion they made the mistake to add even more mysteries and in a higher pace in season 2, then to solve the ones (or partially at least) the ones of season 1. At the end of season 2 you ended with a big blurr of secrets, plot twists and unexplained phenomena, but there is only so much a viewer can take. The difference between season 2 and 3 however was huge. Season 3 handed out a lot of insights, to partially replace them with new questions. And that's exactly how they should write; you want to thumble from one plot twist to the next, not get a tsunami of secrets spread all over you and then pick up a few to explain to the viewers. They got that in season 3 and brings us a promising series future for season 4. Its good to see that such a different format of a series, can be so hugely popular.
|
positive
|
The relationship between the main characters I thought was very realistic. How the two end up involved is believable. It doesn't have that whole "oh yeah right" that most Hollywood movies have. Not too mention how they captured the sexy, beautiful and painful side of trapeze. I am a trapeze student and I love that they showed how hard it is on the body, hands and yeah those fabric burns are brutal! Definitely a must see for the relationship as well as the art that is made in the movie. I loved it! I'm happy with the way the movie ended but I definitely wanted to see more. Be sure to stay seated through the credits for a special treat hehe. Great scene!
|
positive
|
My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.<br /><br />Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.<br /><br />But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, "Parker" (Jonathan Schaech) and "Sam" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, "Tootsie".<br /><br />The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love.
|
positive
|
So I guess that Bud and Lou just liked to mess with classic stories (although they did have some interesting results). In this case, they're baby-sitting a bad boy, and Lou tries to read him "Jack and the Beanstalk" but falls asleep and dreams that he's Jack and Bud's the butcher, and they climb the beanstalk to rescue the prince and princess from the giant (Buddy Baer).<br /><br />I think that my favorite scene was when Lou was trying to make the giant an omelet, and...well, I'll let you see what happens. As this was an Abbott and Costello movie, they did have a few unnecessary songs, but other than that, it was pretty funny. For other interpretations of the classic story, "Bewitched" and "Gilligan's Island" both had episodes portraying it.
|
positive
|
Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.<br /><br />This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.<br /><br />You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.<br /><br />I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
This would have to rate as one of the worst films of all time. The film screened at the Italian Film Festival in Melbourne, Australia. After the screening, not only did I want my money refunded, I wanted the 1.5 wasted hours of my life back too. I have a very broad tolerance level when it comes to the indulgences of some European film-making, but this is one of those films that is selected for festivals based on the reputation of the filmmaker alone. This film is proof that while such selections may satisfy the egos of the film-maker and the selection panel, there is absolutely no joy for the audience. There is no character development whatsoever, the plot is a garbled mess, the style is nonsensical, the shot selection is appalling, and the editing is worse. By the end of the first reel, you'll wonder if you walked into the wrong cinema, and by the end of the third reel, you'll be begging to be put out of your misery. This film is an abomination.
|
negative
|
This for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror/suspense/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called "The Eye 2" except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch "The Eye" with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If "The Eye" remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't/can't see the original, because very often/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.
|
negative
|
John (Ben Chaplin) is a lonely bank clerk who lives in a small town not far from London. Though the Internet, he contacts a Russian agency of brides. He selects Sophia (Nicole Kidman the guy could be lonely and shy, but certainly has a good taste, doesn't he?) and when they met each other, he realizes that she does not speak English. The communication between each other is basically limited by sex (again, imagine, what a terrible situation for the guy, just have some kinky sex with Nicole Kidman!). On her birthday, two Russian friends of her visit them. Then, lots of surprises will happen. I liked this movie: first, it is almost impossible to be 'labeled'. Is it a black comedy, an action, a thriller movie? I believe all the choices are correct. Nicole Kidman is gorgeous as usual, and I am very curious about her Russian: is she speaking Russian in a correct accent indeed, or just faking? Anyway, I found it an enjoyable movie. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Isca Perfeita" ("The Perfect Bait")
|
positive
|
Shakespeare said that we are actors put into a great stage. But when this stage is Israel the work that we interpret multiplies for ten and all the actions we do are full of a hard style. Dan Katzir manages to do a spectacular portrait of a part of life in Tel Aviv, but besides, Katzir manages to penetrate into the heart of the Israeli people and, this people, far from being simple prominent figures, they speak to us from the heart. Katzir's film allows Israel escape from dark informative crux in which they live, and this wonderful country arises to the light as a splendid bird which is born of his ashes. It is very great for me because the reality of state of Israel, which the Europeans only know for the informative diaries or the newspapers, appears as a close and absolutly human reality, the reality of million people who looking for his place, exploring the whole state, the whole culture with the only aim to feel part of it. Katzir constructs an absolutely wonderful documentary and he demonstrates that when a man films with passion the deepest feelings are projected with force, and these feelings cross our hearts. Thank you Dan for open our eyes and give us one of the most beautiful portraits of the most wonderful countries of the world.
|
positive
|
I just discovered this film and love it. Just the right mix of fast moving story, entertaining characters, hilarious moments (but not overloaded with stupid jokes), and fun performances by Kelsey Grammar, Harry Dean Stanton, Ron Schneider, Rip Torn and more. Buckman is especially good, and I really enjoyed watching the guy who played Stapanick.<br /><br />I also find it interesting that they used a real submarine, the Pampanito, for the running on top scenes and emulated it almost exactly for their sets. The set decoration is really impressive if you do a digital tour of the Pampanito online and then compare it to scenes in the movie. They did an excellent job on this film.<br /><br />What a light entertaining and truly enjoyable movie!
|
positive
|
Second movie in the boxset. Originally titled Bloodsuckers, This movie was pretty average. It is kinda boring in some parts but there is some good gore effects, but they're not great though. <br /><br />The movie takes place in the year 2210. Vampires have pretty much taken over the whole world. The V-SAN (Vampire Sanitation) Squad, which also has their own spaceship and is lead by Churchill, who is captured by the vampires, receives a message from an Earth and the team, formed by Quintana (Played by the very hot Natassia Malthe), the rookie officer Damian and the rebels Rosa and Roman (Roman being played by Aaron Pearl from Wrongfully Accused.) V-SAN later meets up with the leader of the vampires Muco, played by Michael Ironside from Total Recall. He has no plans of living peacefully with humans, as he is bent on world domination. <br /><br />While this movie was not a waste of time, I doubt I'll be putting back in the DVD player anytime soon.
|
negative
|
THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED (TGGEP, 2005) is an amazingly uplifting, infectious underdog film that never (really) devolves into sappiness or heavyhandedness. Yes, it takes several liberties, as most Hollywood films do, but those liberties are forgiven as they actually add to the film's enjoyment, not detract from it. In fact, there are a lot of truthful moments in it. You can really tell that it's a "Rocky" type film from the film's outset, but who cares? Directed by none other than Bill Paxton (I know, right?!), it's expertly done and immensely watchable! <br /><br />TGGEP tells the story of Francis Ouimet (played with confidence, cockiness, and class by superstar-to-be Shia LaBeouf), an amateur golfer from a working class Irish-French immigrant family living in Brookline, MA, in the early 1900s. Ouimet qualifies to play in the 1913 U.S. Open. Included amongst his competition is the legendary Harry Vardon (played with immense class, dignity, and ferocity by Stephen Dillane). Ironically, Vardon is the 2nd underdog in this flick! The film starts in 1870s Scotland where land developers tell the youngster that they are building a golf course on his home and that golf is a game not for the likes of someone like him. Francis undergoes some of the same prejudice as a boy in early 1900s Brookline. The stories converge at the 1913 Open.<br /><br />What's ironic is that even as an adult and multiple major champion, Vardon is still an outcast in British society due to his upbringing. Francis learned much about golf from reading Vardon's books on the subject and Vardon is his idol all growing up. Unbeknownst to Vardon, they actually met back in 1900 in Boston after Vardon, who won that year's Open, was touring when Francis was only 7.<br /><br />In addition to Francis and Vardon, entrants in the 1913 Open include Vardon's friend and champion Brit Ted Ray (boisterous Stephen Marcus) and classless, chest-thumping two-time defending champion John McDermott (Michael Weaver). The film really does a good job of showing the different personalities of these men.<br /><br />Redheaded Marnie McPhail is ingratiatingly serene and stunning as Francis' supportive Irish mum and veteran Elias Koteas gives a stern, reserved, taciturn performance as his French dad. Addtionally, plucky young Josh Flitter (as Francis' pint-sized 10-year old caddy Eddie) almost single handedly steals the proceedings.<br /><br />Paxton throws in a lot of modern details, such as special effects zooming-in shots to show the scoreboard positioning of the players and CGI for a lot of the golf shots to keep the film exciting and at a brisk pace so as not to make the film too much of a period piece. But the film still convinces us of a specific time and place.<br /><br />What's interesting is that, while Rocky-like, this is all based on a true story! So the ending is satisfactory on so many levels. An entertaining film about golf set in the early 1900s...Wow!
|
positive
|
The Emperor's (Richard Haydn) dog is betrothed to Johanna's (Joan Fontaine) dog. However, when Virgil (Bing Crosby) arrives in town to sell a gramaphone record player to the Emperor, his dog is attacked by Johanna's dog. After a revenge attack where Virgil is banished from town, a psychoanalyst insists that Johanna's dog must confront Virgil's dog so that she can overcome her doggy fears. This is arranged and the dogs fall in love. So do Virgil and Johanna. The rest of the film passes by with romance and at the end, Johanna's dog gives birth. But who is the father.......? <br /><br />The dog story is the very weak vehicle that is used to try and create a story between humans. Its a terrible storyline. There are 3 main musical pieces all of which are rubbish - bad songs and dreadful choreography. Its just an extremely boring film - Bing has too many words in each sentence and delivers them in an almost shouty, irritating manner. Its not funny............ EVER..........but its meant to be. Bing and Joan have done much better than this.
|
negative
|
I'm not saying that just as a Chris Rock fan, I'm saying this as a person who had low expectations going in to this movie and was proved wrong. The first flaw was it's everything-works-out ending that everybody saw coming. Flaw number two was I found that the chemistry between Regina King and Chris Rock seemed fake. Finally the acting in this movie was sub-par, with the best actor being Regina King and the worst being Mark Addy. but I saw past that flaw and saw a solid comedy. In a heads-up scenario, watch heaven can wait instead, it's better. So for all you Chris Rock fans out there, WATCH THIS MOVIE, you'll enjoy out. He has some good stand-up in this movie.<br /><br />Overall: 7 out of 10
|
positive
|
This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.
|
negative
|
I have grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.<br /><br />It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.<br /><br />I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath.
|
negative
|
Street Fight is a brilliant piece of brutal satire. This is not a movie you just watch for fun. It is not a comfortable experience, although it does have some laugh-out-loud moments. This is a movie you watch when you need food for thought.<br /><br />To dismiss this film as simply racist is to miss the point entirely. This is not only a satire of Song of the South, it's also a biting commentary on the prejudices that Americans still have as a society. Every ethnic group portrayed in the movie gets shown as grotesque caricatures of their stereotypes, which in turn are grotesque caricatures of real people. Through this wild exaggeration, the filmmaker shows just how absurd these tightly-held beliefs really are.<br /><br />If you're the sort of person who's willing to acknowledge the ugliness of the prevalent prejudices American culture still holds, and if you're not afraid to look your own prejudices in the eye, this movie may be for you.
|
positive
|
What does the " Executive producer " do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies " starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch <br /><br />PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly
|
negative
|
What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.<br /><br />First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.<br /><br />Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.<br /><br />"Would you like to ride my yacht?"<br /><br />"Is that what they're calling it now?"<br /><br />"You could ride my ding."<br /><br />"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"<br /><br />Badly played, sir.
|
negative
|
Memoirs of a Geisha is a beautifully filmed movie, there is no doubt about that. And the acting is generally excellent, at least in terms of how it portrays the characters as they are scripted.<br /><br />However, so many details small and large are just _wrong_ that it just bothers me too much to be able to enjoy it fully. A small detail that typifies the kind of lack of sensitivity of sorts is one scene (no this does not spoil anything) where Mameha rings a bell that hangs at the door of the house where Sayuri lives, on a snowy winter day. The bell she's ringing is a fuurin, or wind chime - that is only left hanging outside of houses in Japan in the summer! People in traditional Japanese homes didn't have doorbells - they just opened the door and announced themselves. (You may think this is such a trivial detail, but I would equate this to a movie made about America where a Christmas wreath is hanging on the door in July and no one thinks anything of it.) And don't even get me started on the totally wrong hairstyles given to the maiko and geisha, which is vaguely pan-Asian/Chinese/kung-fu-ish, and nothing like real thing. I think this rather cavalier attitude towards the culture they are trying to portray really comes out in the attitudes and the portrayals of people and situations too. <br /><br />So, I suppose that the less you know about Japanese culture and the world of the geisha and maiko in Kyoto (which is what "Miyako" is), then I suppose the more you will enjoy this. I honestly think this movie could have been so much better...as it is, it's just another Hollywood version of "exotic Japan".
|
negative
|
Terry Gilliam's fantastic, twisted story of a virus destroying all but a handful of people across the Earth and forcing them to move underground and the man sent back in time to gather information about it is a fantastic, dizzying, and highly stylized film that boasts Bruce Willis' best performance ever.<br /><br />What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel sci-fi movies is that Bruce Willis character actually deals with what the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actual reality: the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to. Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a tautly written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia.<br /><br />Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility.<br /><br />Visually, Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivalling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colorless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness characters.<br /><br />Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a patented loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly garnered him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives the best performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false 'religion.'<br /><br />Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness. Ranking in my top 10 of all time, 12 Monkeys is a darkly lavish spectacle of a film brimming with brilliance.<br /><br />10 out of 10
|
positive
|
I enjoyed the movie and the story immensely! I have seen the original(1939 I believe) and enjoyed them both. To really appreciate the story one must be familiar with English culture and customs. The prof.(Peter O'Toole) was dedicated to his school and "the boys" in that school. It was an English "public" school, which we in the U.S. refer to as a private school (E.G. Andover). He is a very ascetic person and, on the surface, gives the appearance of being stiff, stuffy, uncaring, and weak to the point of being effeminate. He is strict in his educational standards because he DOES care for "his lads", i.e., he doesn't want them to get a cheap or weak education. He meets(through introduction) a "dance hall girl"(Petula Clark) and is totally smitten. In England at the time, the reference to "dance hall" carried the connotation of extreme sexual promiscuity and was definitely "lower class". We find that the Prof. is in fact a very tough and courageous person as well as loyal to people and institutions that he loves and/or respects. Clark becomes more than a lover and wife...she "leavens" his personality and allows him to grow as a man and a person, much to the benefit of his beloved school and his own happiness. The first movie was set BEFORE WW II, this one goes through WW II, also, it is 1969( we've had the "British Invasion"...Beetles, etc. Clark had hits and was very popular then...still is to me), the music is great, color and photography excellent. I think O'Toole played the character perfectly! There ARE dedicated people like "Chips"...all around us but many do not receive the recognition. Very enjoyable movie and story!
|
positive
|
For those viewers who thought the 1979 film "Alien" the first to depict a male Earthling being impregnated by a malevolent extraterrestrial, "Night of the Blood Beast," made 21 years earlier, may come as something of a surprise. In this film, America's first man in space crashlands back on Earth and, after examination, is thought to be dead. He later comes to again, only with a half dozen or so alien seahorse thingies growing in his abdomen. The mama (?) alien also pops up to terrify the small band of scientists who are observing our gravid hero, and she (?) seems to have the body of a bear and the head of Yarnek, the rock creature from a 1969 "Star Trek" episode. Anyway, with its short, 62-minute running time, small group of scientists, and cheap-looking monster, this film suggests nothing less than a Grade Z warm-up for "The Outer Limits" (which would premiere four years later), but without the fine writing that that show usually boasted. Despite the lurid title, this film is decidedly sci-fi, not horror, and offers no scares, no laffs, little suspense and little food for thought afterwards. It looks as if it cost around $100 to make (but probably cost twice as much), and its musical score often seems to have no relation to the happenings (I won't use the word "action") on screen. By the film's end, many questions remain: Just how was our hero to give birth to these critters? Why does the alien need to decapitate people to learn our language? (To justify that title, no doubt!) Why can't the space-traveling aliens land on our planet, rather than needing to hitch rides on our ships? How was our hero impregnated to begin with? These are all matters that this little cheapie can't be bothered with. It really is for 1950s sci-fi completists only.
|
negative
|
I will admit, I had the opportunity in the past to watch this film, and after about 5 - 10 minutes into it, I felt like many did. I was expecting a Monkey movie that was similar to the television show, but instead I was given... well, I didn't know what I was given to be honest.<br /><br />However, after finally watching this film, I realized that not only had I had a closed mind to the brilliance it depicts, I also found myself watching it over and over again. It's the one movie that never ceases to interest me, simply because it keeps me alert, as I try to attempt to decipher it's meanings. And just when I think I've figured out something in the film, it's answer is destroyed once I watch the film again. Brilliance indeed.<br /><br />It seems that most people who disliked this film are wanting to watch a film with primarily a clear plot. They want everything explained and all questions answered in the finale. Well sorry, if that's what you're wanting, this is not the movie for you. But if you liked movies like The Matrix (and better yet, their sequels) I think you'll appreciate the thought provoking, mindblowing experience this film will give you.<br /><br />Think of the film being like a dream. In our dreams, things make no sense, things we expect to happen don't, people places and things don't speak, act or function in the same way they do in reality. To complain about "Head" is like complaining about a dream you've had that you felt you could not understand. The mind is a complex system, and being that a film titled "Head" is just as complex, is it that difficult to relate the two?<br /><br />The music (and musical numbers) really stand out, especially Peter Tork's two compositions, which remain the best tracks in the film, "Can You Dig It?" and "Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again?"<br /><br />This film proves that The Monkees were much more than just four zanny guys in a 'pre-fab' group (as their critics called them) on a television show, but that they are actually much more intelligent and talented than the world would give them credit for. There's so many messages that can be derived from the film, both in regards to The Monkees and to the 'entertainment industry' in general, that it stands as a masterpiece of film-making that was far ahead of it's time.<br /><br />I feel, had this film been released as an independent piece at this point and time, it would actually garner the respect and admiration it deserves.<br /><br />And one finale note:<br /><br />One could compare this to The Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour" film, since The Beatles film appeared to be just as strange and bizarre. However, in my opinion, "Head" stands far above anything The Beatles put on celluloid.
|
positive
|
A very different Jerry Lewis film, not like all those more famous films that everybody knows. Lewis deals with the difficult task of WW II and National Socialism in Germany in a rather unconventional way. But even more interesting and important, he does it in a very un-American way. And as with so many things in the world and especially in the film industry un-American means more sophisticated, more subtle, more intelligent or simply better. That is the reason why the film was no success in the US but a very great success in Europe.<br /><br />All in all, Jerry Lewis has proven by this movie, that he is able to do much more than simple slapstick comedy.
|
positive
|
In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.<br /><br />But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.<br /><br />But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: "You are all dead in this situation!" barks a sergeant. "Any Questions?" "Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.<br /><br />Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.<br /><br />What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.<br /><br />While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military.
|
positive
|
The effects of job related stress and the pressures born of a moral dilemma that pits conscience against the obligations of a family business (albeit a unique one) all brought to a head by-- or perhaps the catalyst of-- a midlife crisis, are examined in the dark and absorbing drama, `Panic,' written and directed by Henry Bromell, and starring William H. Macy and Donald Sutherland. It's a telling look at how indecision and denial can bring about the internal strife and misery that ultimately leads to apathy and that moment of truth when the conflict must, of necessity, at last be resolved.<br /><br /> Alex (Macy) is tired; he has a loving wife, Martha (Tracey Ullman), a precocious six-year-old son, Sammy (David Dorfman), a mail order business he runs out of the house, as well as his main source of income, the `family' business he shares with his father, Michael (Sutherland), and his mother, Deidre (Barbara Bain). But he's empty; years of plying this particular trade have left him numb and detached, putting him in a mental state that has driven him to see a psychologist, Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter). And to make matters worse (or maybe better, depending upon perspective), in Dr. Parks' waiting room he meets a young woman, Sarah Cassidy (Neve Campbell), whose presence alone makes him feel alive for the first time since he can remember. She quickly becomes another brick in the wall of the moral conflict his job has visited upon him, as in the days after their meeting he simply cannot stop thinking about her. His whole life, it seems, has become a `situation'-- one from which he is seemingly unable to successfully extirpate himself without hurting the ones he loves. He can deny his age and the fact that he has, indeed, slipped into a genuine midlife crisis, but he is about to discover that the problems he is facing are simply not going to go away on their own. He's at a crossroads, and he's going to have to decide which way to go. And he's going to have to do it very soon.<br /><br /> From a concept that is intrinsically interesting, Bromell has fashioned an engrossing character study that is insightful and incisive, and he presents it is a way that allows for moments of reflection that enable the audience to empathize and understand what Alex is going through. He makes it very clear that there are no simple answers, that in real life there is no easy way out. His characters are well defined and very real people who represent the diversity found in life and, moreover, within any given family unit. The film resoundingly implies that the sins of the father are irrefutably passed on to the progeny, with irrevocable consequences and effects. When you're growing up, you accept your personal environment as being that of the world at large; and often it is years into adulthood that one may begin to realize and understand that there are actually moral parameters established by every individual who walks upon the planet, and that the ones set by the father may not be conducive to the tenets of the son. And it is at that point that Alex finds himself as the story unfolds; ergo, the midlife crisis, or more specifically, the crisis of conscience from which he cannot escape. It's a powerful message, succinctly and subtly conveyed by Bromell, with the help of some outstanding performances from his actors.<br /><br /> For some time, William H. Macy has been one of the premiere character actors in the business, creating such diverse characters as Quiz Kid Donnie Smith in `Magnolia,' The Shoveler in `Mystery Men' and Jerry Lundegaard in `Fargo.' And that's just a sampling of his many achievements. At one point in this film, Sarah mentions Alex's `sad eyes,' and it's a very telling comment, as therein lies the strength of Macy's performance here, his ability to convey very real emotion in an understated, believable way that expresses all of the inner turmoil he is experiencing. Consider the scene in which he is lying awake in bed, staring off into the darkness; in that one restless moment it is clear that he is grappling, not only with his immediate situation, but with everything in his life that has brought him, finally, to this point. In that scene you find the sum total of a life of guilt, confusion and uncertainty, all of which have been successfully suppressed until now; all the things that have always been at the core of Alex's life, only now gradually breaking through his defense mechanisms and finally surfacing, demanding confrontation and resolution. It's a complex character created and delivered by Macy with an absolute precision that makes Alex truly memorable. It's a character to whom anyone who has ever faced a situation of seemingly insurmountable odds will be able to relate. It's a terrific piece of work by one of the finest actors around.<br /><br /> Sutherland is extremely effective, as well; his Michael is despicably sinister in a way that is so real it's chilling. It's frightening, in fact, to consider that there are such people actually walking the earth. This is not some pulp fiction or James Bond type villain, but a true personification of evil, hiding behind an outward appearance that is so normal he could be the guy next door, which is what makes it all the more disconcerting. And Sutherland brings it all to life brilliantly, with a great performance.<br /><br /> Neve Campbell looks the part of Sarah, but her performance (as is the usual case with her) seems somewhat pretentious, although her affected demeanor here just happens to fit the character and is actually a positive aspect of the film. If only she would occasionally turn her energies inward, it would make a tremendous difference in the way she presents her characters. `Panic,' however, is one of her best efforts; a powerful film that, in the end, is a journey well worth taking. 9/10. <br /><br />
|
positive
|
Best Cinematography I have ever seen
Considering the year the movie was made I was absolutely amazed and thoroughly impressed with the amount of attention dedicated to the scenes and with what appears to be authenticity. Though I am not particularly a western movie buff
.every single scene is given the utmost detail, and it is haunting. There is a sincere connection with nature. At times I am overwhelmed with the amount of action passing through the scenes, but I am never bored. I feel as though I am truly peering into a time machine and looking back into the old west. I recommend this movie to anyone who is studying set design, location planning, and for that matter photography in general. It can be a humbling movie to experience with regards to the visuals considering this era of digital touch-up that we now experience.
|
positive
|
That's a weird, weird movie and doesn't deserve a better mark than David Lynch's one! The special effects are badly made, the actors are majorly bad actors and in this movie it's not about a race which is the minority of a planet and tries to fight against the dominators, but it seems to be a crazy movie, which pays homage to sect kind of organisations. That's surely not the will of Frank Herbert, the author of the six part epic! Check out David Lynch's one, that's the perfect tribute to the novels!
|
negative
|
I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.<br /><br />The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.<br /><br />The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.<br /><br />There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands.
|
negative
|
At the bottom end of the apocalypse movie scale is this piece of pish called 'The Final Executioner'.. at least where I come from. A bloke is trained by an ex-cop to seek vengeance on those that killed his woman and friends in cold blood.. and that's about it. Lots of fake explosions and repetitive shootings ensue. Has one of the weirdest array of costumes I've seen in a film for a while, and a massive fortress which is apparently only run by 7 people. GREAT job on the dubbing too guys(!) Best moment: when our hero loses a swordfight and is about to be skewered through the neck, he just gets out his gun and BANG! Why not do that earlier? It's a mystery. As is why anyone would want to sit through this in the first place. I'm still puzzling over that one myself now.. 2/10
|
negative
|
This is a good enough movie and you probably won't be disappointed, but it again has Roy Scheider, right after he did "French Connection", playing a cop with the name 'Buddy'. They also use the same too-memorable wheelman from "Bullitt". At first you'll think you've seen the car chase before if you have his face still in your memory. The car chase is a great one, but as in many car movie scenes, it has some technical and editing errors. Check "Puppet on a Chain" and "French Connection II" for some other good, long, intense chases.
|
positive
|
The sitcom revolved around a girl who must learn to be responsible for her own actions. As she had the power of magic, she often used it to try to help her loved ones or herself, frequently resulting in literal puns that are often disastrous and always humorous.<br /><br />The program began with Sabrina's adventures in high school in the fictional town of Westbridge, located near Boston, Massachusetts (as opposed to Greendale in the comics). In the series' later seasons, Sabrina graduated from high school and enrolled in college, then moved on to her attempts to live on her own and keep a job at the local newspaper. Breaking further from its comic roots, the show ended with Sabrina's wedding, although, in the end, she abandoned the wedding and ran off with Harvey.<br /><br />Many episodes involve Sabrina getting to meet, through natural or supernatural means, popular real-life musical artists of the time, including Coolio, the Violent Femmes, the Backstreet Boys, Phantom Planet, Davy Jones of The Monkees, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne, Daniel Bedingfield, Hanson, Eden's Crush, Savage Garden, 'N Sync, and Ashanti. Course of Nature, the band of Melissa Joan Hart's then-boyfriend (now husband) Mark Wilkerson, appeared in an episode in 2002.
|
positive
|
Seriously, all these Satan comes to Earth movies always involve the Catholics. Why doesn't Lucifer ever mess with the other denominations.<br /><br />The plot is that Asmodeus (Played by former Jason Vorhees Kane Hodder) has a plot to become human (but wasn't he always a demon) by getting this young girl who is his sister pregnant with his child. Except maybe she isn't his sister. The plot isn't clear on this, and they inter-splice these scenes where he is seeing a shrink about his problem.<br /><br />The lead girl gets pregnant while still a virgin, with an incredibly creepy scene of her father giving her a gynecological exam to prove her hymen is still intact.... Eeeewwwwww. Her sister (played by a washed up and looking much worse for wear Denise Crosby) concludes that this is a sign from heaven. Praise be! <br /><br />Well, the demon baby takes mom's body for a joy ride and picks off, in order, a truck driver, her friend's boyfriend and her friend, all being watched by an ex-military priest whose mission is to kill the baby when it is born. We discover that Asmodeus is actually a Catholic Cardinal who is running the whole thing.<br /><br />The ending is pretty much incomprehensible, and if you could make it that far straight through, you have a stronger stomach than I did. (I paused the film a couple of times, it was so awful.)
|
negative
|
Funny that I find myself forced to review this movie, but here I am.<br /><br />I am reviewing it, because just recently, I have had the chance to witness the revival of R.C. Sheriff's play "Journey's End" on stage in New York, at the Belasco Theatre, starring Hugh Darcy, Boyd Gaines, Jefferson Mays and others, as well as being masterfully directed by David Grindley.<br /><br />I left the theater shattered. I am not exaggerating, I was flabbergasted. After almost two and a half hours of a recreated and very claustrophobic depiction of soldier's life in the trenches of the Somme (I speculate), during World War One, brought to life vividly, by everyone involved, I came out of the theater with the shakes.<br /><br />Mind you, I am not easily shocked, nor am I too sensitive. I am a stage actor and a director myself, so I know the buttons being pressed to achieve certain effects, both emotionally, as well as psychologically.<br /><br />But what I had just witnessed, came so much to life, that I had chills in my spine as I left.<br /><br />None of these emotions came to life, while watching "Aces High", the movie based on this play and even adapted for the screen, in cooperation with R.C. Sheriff himself, shortly before he died.<br /><br />The screen adaptation takes place in the skies over France. So, gone is the claustrophobic ambiance to start with.<br /><br />The only plus of the movie, are the aerial battle scenes, which look dated in their special effects, compared to today's standards, but still very valid in the flying tactics adopted on screen.<br /><br />Granted there had been a couple of screen adaptations of "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque, which takes place in trenches, and not in the sky, but that was the "German" vision on things, if one would like to be picky on such things.<br /><br />"Journey's End" is just the other side of the medal, and would have made it into a great movie, if they had left it alone and intact.<br /><br />The transfer on DVD is poor, even though in Widescreen and adapted for 16:9 TV screens, the quality of the film itself is that of a movie theater. Nothing more, nothing less. It sports various defects, such as minor scratches and dots, although the copy, for the rest, is clean.<br /><br />If you want another WWI movie in your collection, especially for those who love and enjoy to see aerial battles among old-timers, then this is a picture for you. But I rather would suggest "Von Richthofen and Brown" as an alternative, although that too, is a movie filled with inaccuracies.<br /><br />For the rest of you, who love good acting and drama, I would leave this one out. Buy the play. Go watch the play, if you have the chance to get a decent revival of it near you, but keep off this would-be adaptation.<br /><br />It is an anti-war movie, granted, but the weakest I have ever seen in my lifetime ever.<br /><br />The presence of actors such as Trevor Howard, Ray Milland, Richard Johnson and John Gielgud, is just a bluff, since they are just seen in very weak and very brief cameo roles throughout the movie.<br /><br />McDowell, the very talented Christopher Plummer, Simon Ward and Peter Firth, all deliver very weak performances, not due to their lack of skills, but rather due to lack of true and solid direction.<br /><br />There are too many gaps in it, and as said before, it drags itself to the dubious end. Dubious because in the original play, none of the men we come to know and sympathize with, stay alive. They are all killed in a fatal and futile mission. In the movie they all die, except Malcolm McDowell, who manages somehow to stay alive another day, being the wing commander of the unlucky bunch, just to receive another three pilots to fly and die for another lost cause.<br /><br />The end of the play leaves a bare stage in total darkness. You just hear the cannons roar, the machine guns rattle, and grenade impacts throughout the theater. Then, suddenly, total peace and silence. The curtain comes up. Lights. And here they all are. Lined up, standing straight and rigid. Obedient corpses...<br /><br />Far more interesting and far more shocking than "Aces High" finale, which is also dragged by the hair.<br /><br />It is up to you to judge.<br /><br />For me, if I had the money and the contacts to do so, I would take the play and develop it, the way it was meant. Adding here and there some action scene in the field, just to visualize the "outer" horror and slaughter going on in the "vasty fields of France", around the men involved, but then, just strictly concentrating on what is going on, in that tiny "shack" at the edge of sanity and the world...<br /><br />Want such a movie?<br /><br />Then ask for it.<br /><br />This is not it.
|
negative
|
This is a mildly interesting late 80's gore fest featuring some nasty slugs with a taste for human blood. If you can get past the ridiculousness of the whole thing you might actually get some minor enjoyment out of this. The acting is awful and the plot is simply there to hold the movie together between gory slug attacks, but the movie isn't a complete waste of time. The special effects are actually quite good, and the gore is well done. It reminded me of the remake of the Blob, probably because of the sliminess of it all. All in all, you could certainly do worse with an hour and a half of your time, but I wouldn't suggest seeing this movie unless you've got a strong stomach and are into this sort of thing.
|
negative
|
I love the Satan Pit!!! David Tennant is such a great actor and so is Billie Piper!!! Who else loves Will Thorp to pieces??? He is so cute, isn't he? I hated the bits where he got possessed by the devil and where he got told to "go to hell", as Rose so bluntly put it. Mind you, he was quite funny when he said, "Rose, do us a favour, will you? Shut up!". Mr Jefferson was so brave, wasn't he? Dying to save the others. I felt really sorry for Toby (Will Thorp) when he came out of the possession for the 2nd time because he was so scared. I was like "Oh my god if I was Rose I'd be so scared for him". And when she hugged him I was like "grrrrrr, he's mine! hands off!" but I thought that was really sweet. And the doctor....well, I thought he was gonna say to Ida "tell Rose I love her" but he didn't. Oh well.
|
positive
|
I have seen the freebird movie and think its great! its laid back fun, about time the British film industry came through with something entertaining!! its good how the guy who met them at the service station gets mentioned way into the film in the news agents, nice touch. The acting was convincing (i am a biker) they reminded me of some good times i have had in the bike scene. It was good to see the film director getting in on the acting, well done jon ! At the end a new crop gets mentioned, in Ireland is this the foundation for a 2nd film? hope so keep them coming. Great film , well written, realistic characters !
|
positive
|
Rent this, I own the DVD, got it for $9.99. A steal being so under-rated. Sure, there are better movies. Movies with fewer or no holes in the plot or action. BUt I don't have that problem with this movie. For me if a movie stays true to itself, honest and exploitive of its flaws (and virtues, obviously!) in the name of entertainment, then it has fulfilled its purpose. I got me to care, because its makers cared. The entire movie is preposterous from beginning to end, but its makers took the whole undertaking seriously, And I did not feel manipulated into taking the movie seriously. And that is so true, because I want to take every movie seriously yet many, oh so many, let me down. For all of its preposterousness, this movie is almost perfect, and completely entertaining!What a funny screenplay! It also has become eerily relevant in light of the events on 9/11. In no way do I seek to minimize the loss. But this movie incorporates the tradegy of the WTC collapse before it happened in ways that we will never see had the movie been made after those events.<br /><br />"...it's either gone for good, or here to stay." "wouldn't you agree?"
|
positive
|
Michelle Rodriguez is a well-built high-school senior who discovers that she has a powerful punch and begins amateur training at a Brooklyn gym. Santiago Douglas is a a handsome young man, barely older than she, who also trains there. They meet after class, so to speak, and feel attracted to each other. No sex. Santiago has been instructed to save it for his next bout.<br /><br />Both are participants in a "gender-blind" athletic program that makes no distinctions between males and females, a misguided attempt to level the athletic playing field.<br /><br />A conservative radio commentator recently announced -- and I swear I'm not making this up -- "Let's face it; the president is black." I'm here to make an equally perspicacious observation -- "Men and women are different." Now, in 99 cases out of 100, this needn't make any difference in physical performance. But in the top one percent -- trained athletes whose skills have been honed to a fine edge -- men generally have the advantage. With their narrow hips they can run faster. And they have greater muscle mass and upper torso strength. These differences in body build make it possible for women to give birth and raise children and for men to catch and kill food for them. This sexual bifurcation is the result of the perfectly normal process of natural selection. Without it, there might not be any humans at all. And that, boys and girls, is why they have men's events and women's events at the Olympics. I speak to you as your anthropologist. That will be ten cents, PayPal preferred.<br /><br />That's why I called this gender-blind program misguided. As talented a boxer as Rodrigues is, as she approaches the zenith of the game, she will eventually lose to a male.<br /><br />That's where the complication arises in this movie. Rodrigues is finally matched against her boy friend, Douglas. Neither wants to loose any anger on the other, not to mention roundhouse rights, but the pride of both is at stake, and the pride is both personal and gender related. Douglas refuses to fight a woman in the ring. And Rodriguez is offended by what she sees as his patronizing attitude. It ends happily.<br /><br />I wasn't really expecting much from the film. I thought it would be a rip off of Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" until I discovered that this was released years earlier. And I'd never heard of the director or of any of the performers. That sort of obscurity generally augers ill -- made-for-television weepers and so forth.<br /><br />But I was surprised at how neatly this is put together. The total absence of bathos left me open mouthed. So did the minimal use of boxing clichés -- the frayed ropes, the blood, the cutting of the swollen eye, the battered post-bout faces, the fat and sweaty onlooker shouting "Kill him!", the slow motion landing of glove on nose, the spray of sweat from the mauled head, the heroic music signaling the long-awaited apotheosis of the victor. None of that here -- well, almost none. The whole plot could be considered formulaic. Tough kid finds outlet in the ring, etc.<br /><br />The feeling you're left with is that this is probably pretty much what these amateur contests are like. Different from those we see on TV and in ordinary movies. No bells ring, for instance, Instead a dancing and observant referee yells "Stop!" And "Box!" The contestants wear head gear. The gym is populated not by a crowd of cheering spectators, but only by a handful of people who have some particular interest in the goings on. It's a clean movie, despite the rather grim setting and the unhappy family dynamics.<br /><br />Michelle Rodriguez can look pretty mean, what with her muscular bulk and her eyes glowing under her lowered brow, but once you get used to the idea that this is a girl who can beat you to a pulp anytime she wants, and once you hear the feminine contours of her supersegmentals, she ain't bad. (A scene in which she battles her father to the floor is overdoing it.) It was a little hard to understand Douglas's restraint when Rodriguez crawls all over him in bed. The director, Karyn Kusama, has chosen her talent carefully.<br /><br />Shows what you can do with some talent, imagination, and a modicum of money. There ought to be more films like it. Take one of those multi-billion dollar blockbusters full of dinosaurs or space ships and spread the generosity around a little.
|
positive
|
I had never heard of Silverwing before, then I saw it on Toon Disney and instantly loved it! I also think that it is not just for kids, and that people of all ages would enjoy it. It has a great plot, great effect, and cool characters. I will always love the show, and I heard it will be coming on on DVD worldwide soon, and I'm going to get it! I haven't read any of the books, but I intend to. The show deserves a 10 out of 10, and I hope the books are just as good. Well, that's all I have to say. But I still have 2 lines I have to fill up, so...who do you all think is the coolest character? Mine is Shade, and my second favorite is Marina.
|
positive
|
Jean-Claude Van Damme plays twin brothers Alex and Chad, both whom are martial arts expert who team up to take down the mobsters responsible for the murder of the parents in this empty headed martial arts actioner which doesn't have a plot that would make better use of the gimmick of having two Jean-Claude Van Dammes. Some okay actionscenes, but this is not one of Van Damme's best.
|
negative
|
There must have been a lot of background info that was left out of the movie. In fact, in the film, the girl, Lizzy, didn't even appear depressed. She just seemed like a girl that went out of control when she finally got to college, mainly from doing drugs and drinking alcohol. That seemed to be her problem, not mental illness. Sure, she had emotional problems because her dad left and she barely saw him as a child, and her mom seemed a little out there. But, the way she treated Noah and Ruby was just mean and I don't think caused by depression. She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.<br /><br />But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene. Otherwise, it isn't very interesting.
|
negative
|
The beginning of the movie was confusing and the rest of it was predictable. It was just one of those movies that I came across in my netflix instant queue and I thought it would be interesting to see Brad Renfro and Bijou Phillips team up together again since Bully. Unfortunately "interesting" never happened in this movie. Swain plays an invisible girl at a private school whose best friend is rich and does anything she wants at any time (Phillips). But Swain likes one of the boys (Renfro) from the "in crowd" and eventually starts hanging with them. And, of course, like all other movies things are good (or so you assume since the movie never hints on that things are good) and then things become not so good by hanging with the rich kids.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that there are absolutely no peaks and valleys. It is just a dead lifeless movie that after you've watched it, you feel you could have done anything better. Some scenes (the ones with Renfro's parents) don't even make sense as to being in the movie because the director and writer didn't follow up on it, at all.<br /><br />All the interesting things that COULD have played out was just completely ignore and this is almost like watching a before they were stars episode (Mischa Barton and Rachel Bison from the OC). <br /><br />The only shining light in this movie, and the reason it doesn't get a ONE rating from me is Phillips. They needed more scenes with her in it. Renfro just look like he brought over a bit of his character from Bully. And, for pete's sake, the Title is BS, change the name.
|
negative
|
Remember the early days of Pay Per View? I do, and i can almost remember the number you had to CALL to actually rent the movie on your t.v. As a kid we always wanted to rent playboy, but this meant actually calling someone from PPV and asking to rent it. And then you get the nerve to do it and your watching four hours of soft core no angle crap. Well the reason i bring that up is because this movie too was on ppv. And i remember almost every scene that was in the add. I've been on a kick in the last few years to obtain all the great movies i use to see as a kid and this was one of them. It's one that when its on its hard to shut off. All star cast trying to commit the perfect bank bust but nothing goes right. There are plenty of spoof bank capers that are good and this one has to fall in that category. It has enough action and laughs to sustain it. check it out if you dare!
|
positive
|
God! Where do I begin? From start to finish, I could not help to hate this movie. Vines? Vines that make cell-phone noises?! Oh yeah, I'm so scared - I'm going to rid the weeds of earth! Come on people! The plot went nowhere, When the group discovered the ruin, and the village people (no pun intended) came to warn them and brandished weapons in front of their faces, don't worry, Amy (Jena Malone) was there to take pictures! That whole scene really had me wondering why she didn't take pictures of her beau, Jeff (Johnathon Tucker), sawing off Mathias (Joe Anderson) legs. When the idiots first threw down the rope after Mathias, how the rope was at least ten feet from the ground, but how it eventually was able to be a mere two to four feet from the ground. I cannot begin to cover everything that was wrong about this movie, there is just too much to cover. I will say the graphics as far as the gore were terrific, but it amounted to nothing since the acting and script were so terrifically bad.
|
negative
|
Granted, HOTD 2 is better than the Uwe Boll crapfest that was the first one, but thats like saying drowning is better than being chopped alive. OK OK, I'm being a little bit harsh with this one, its just that Video Game adaptations of Zombie movies always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Resident Evil was alright, but its sequels are pure rubbish. The first HOTD was entertaining crap more than anything else; Uwe Boll saw to that. And HOTD 2 was...better? The entertainment value was there, the hot chicks were there, the gore was there, but... this is it? The script, even though subpar, was better than the first one. But in the script dwells horribly written characters, stupid action sequences, clichés, and an ending that drags on and on reaching a level of ridiculousness which would make the Bollmeister very, very proud. But, it could've been worse right?<br /><br />HOTD 2 stars Sig Haig (Yes, Sid Haig) as an insane doctor looking for a cure to death. As you may guess, it all goes to sh*t. A nearby College Campus seems to be the center for the Zombie (or Hypersapien?) epidemic, and as you may expect, a group of Commandos and two Zombie scientists try to save the world by going there and neutralizing the problem. Their main goal? No, it ain't blowing sh*t up. Instead, they have to get a sample of zombie blood, so they can create a cure to the deadly virus. Between this and that lays bland character interactions, an insufferable amount of clichés (but hey, at least the black guy isn't the first one to get killed), and decent looking Zombies. <br /><br />The acting is passable. Who would've thought that Sticky Fingaz was a passable actor? Not me. Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn shine somewhat as the leads. And the supporting cast was passable too. It was all passable. <br /><br />The make up effects on the Zombies were alright, it could've been worse like in the first HOTD: just guys running around in dusty mummy suits. The gore was alright too. Cheap scares and even cheaper tension are almost non-existent in this movie, which is a good thing. The action sequences were stupid as f*ck, but at least there wasn't any sword fighting zombies or that ridiculous slow motion bullet effect. <br /><br />Overall, this movie will appeal only to Zombie enthusiasts, fans of the arcade games and for someone who wants to rent a cheap Horror movie for the weekend. Apparently there's going to be a third one as hinted by the ending, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless Uwe decides to do it. A 4.
|
negative
|
If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.<br /><br />The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.<br /><br />It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.<br /><br />I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.<br /><br />So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.
|
negative
|
This must be the dumbest movie I've ever seen and therefor it deserves a special award. OK, so it begins pretty good, logical, humor and then rapidly changes to complete and utter uh f@rt,@ss, föck stupidity that makes total sense. The strange thing is that i hardly laughed at it, though i guess it is supposed to be funny, with a very serious message. After a moment of thought why i didn't laugh, the answer was pretty clear... this movie is a lot more realistic then i would like it to be. So it is extremely dumb, yet very wise if the object was to reach people which aren't 'blessed' with a whole lot of neurons and synapses and electrolytes (huh, electrolytes?). This movie might actually be understood at some level by a big audience!<br /><br />Although they probably just laugh.<br /><br />Ah well, nice try...<br /><br />I am now editing (well adding to) my comment, cause i read some of the other comments. First i noticed some people see racism in this movie. Well, that did not at all cross my mind when watching it. However, i can imagine if you are looking from that perspective, you will see some. We could of course debate the link between intelligence and race, but i think this is not the place to do so. I wonder, if we were to rate the Huxtable family here, would you complain about them all being black? I don't think so, but i guess you could... (aside from that, from the 2 wisest people in the world, half, the woman, doesn't seem totally caucasian to me, so 'what the problem is?')<br /><br />Secondly the movie gets very mixed ratings; from 1's to 10's and everything in between, but a lot of polarisation there, which means the movie does its job very well! It stirrs people up, makes them want to speak about it and judge it. That means it is a good movie, whether you like it or hate it. After 5 minutes it becomes very predictive and boring even, yet you keep watching this utter crap. I guess you keep hoping that it isn't so. Or maybe it's our sick way to look at terrible accidents. Well, this is one for sure.
|
positive
|
Cashing in on the "demons-meets-clergy" trend of the late '60s/early '70s that most prominently included the triptych of "Rosemary's Baby," "The Exorcist," and "The Omen," "The Sentinel" is an addition that's just as good (albeit the most overlooked of the lot). In a way, it combines the best elements of those films and tosses in a dash of Polanski's "The Tenant" (which came out the same year) for good measure. A New York model unable to commit to her lawyer boyfriend takes up residence in a moss-coated townhouse that initially seems like the perfect locale; she meets a wily old coot of a neighbor (the brilliant Burgess Meredith), plus the other off-center tenants. Kept awake by loud noises above her apartment, she soon discovers that a mute priest and herself are the only residents in the otherwise deserted building. From there, director Michael Winner ("Death Wish") kicks this supernatural thriller into gear, and there is a devilish glee to the hallucinogenic tortures he inflicts on his heroine. Aided by a brilliant ensemble cast, a subtle storyline, and excellent makeup FX by Dick Smith ("The Exorcist"), "The Sentinel" is a genuinely creepy horror flick.
|
positive
|
One of my favorite movies I saw at preview in Seattle. Tom Hulce was amazing, with out words could convey his feelings/thoughts. I actually sent Mike Ferrell some donation money to help the film get distributed. It is good. System says I need more lines but do not want to give away plot stuff. I was in the audience in Seattle with Hulce and director , a writer I think and Mike Ferrell. They talked for about an hour afterwords. Not really a dry eye in the house. Why Hollywood continues to be stupid I do not know. ( actually I do know , it is our fault, look what we watch)Well you get what you pay for guys. Get this and see it with someone special. It is a gem.
|
positive
|
"The Gig" is a tight, funny and poignant little movie about a group of friends that have gathered together on a regular basis to play Dixieland for fun. The group unexpectedly lands a real paying job, in musician's parlance; a "gig".<br /><br />They travel to upstate NY for a two week gig at a summer resort minus one member, who bows out due to contracting cancer. At the last minute, they hire a professional to take his place. Things get sticky as an over-the-hill Frankie Valli type attempts a comeback at the resort and tries to utilize the group as his band.<br /><br />The attitude the professional bass player gave the guys rang true. By signing up to play the two-week gig, they were taking bread out of the mouths of someone who needed the job to feed his or her family. While Pop, Rock, Rap, Country and Western, and R&B stars make money off of albums. Jazz musicians have to travel abroad to make a living. Almost nobody gets rich. The guys living their dream also cost others a needed income.<br /><br />I believe that almost everyone who can play a musical instrument with some proficiency dreams about playing a paying "gig" one time or another, Woody Allen and Kevin Bacon are two popular examples of this amateur-to-professional crossover. I especially recommend this movie to anyone who has ever played music professionally. My mom, who was a musician, LOVED it.
|
positive
|
Not "confusing" in the sense that, "Gee, this movie is really complex, and thus hard to follow!" But confusing in the sense that, "Gee, this movie really has no idea what it's doing!"<br /><br />DREAM OF A WARRIOR is a Hong Kong/South Korean collaboration, but it's all utter nonsense. A movie about parallel universes mixed in with time travel mixed in with love story mixed in with silliness.<br /><br />The film has the type of concept that boggles the mind. Again, not boggles the mind because it's so great and complex, but boggles in the sense that it's so ridiculous and one can't conceive of anyone ever coming up with such an awful premise to begin with.<br /><br />Nothing in DREAM OF A WARRIOR makes sense, and that's because the whole movie should never have been made. It is quite awful. The only saving grace is the actress who plays the female warrior (not the female lead).<br /><br />3 out of 10.
|
negative
|
Due to a very misleading advertising campaign, I saw this film in theatres at the relatively young age of 10. The trailers on TV portrayed the film as a comedy, and I bugged my parents until they took me. After seeing the movie, I was blown away. I had no idea what to think. Totally different than anything I had seen before, leaving far to many questions for such a young mind. Needless to say, I loved it. This morning was the first time I'd watched in in probably 2-3 years, and I still think it's one of the greatest films made in the last decade. Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges are both in top form, as a mysterious man who may or may not be from another planet, and the psychiatrist that develops a bond with him while trying to decipher his mystery. The supporting cast are near perfect as well, each resident of the mental institution is incredibly convincing in their own way. The open ending was handled very well, giving lots of evidence to support whatever you believe happened in the end. How this movie failed to receive at least a nomination in that year's Oscars is beyond me. If you haven't seen this film, run to Wal-Mart RIGHT NOW. The DVD is usually in the bargain bin, pick it up! <br /><br />9.5/10
|
positive
|
me, my boyfriend, and our friend watched this "movie" if thats what u wanna call it, and we agree with the last person, but we were stupid and bought the damn thing, we thought it really was about diablo so we bought it.<br /><br />we hate it Really SUXZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so beware: DO NOT BUY THIS THING THEY CALL A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />we would return it, but don't no if anybody would want this stupid movie.<br /><br />oh and another thing, the shouldn't call it "The Legend of Diablo" they should of called it "Legend of Azar".<br /><br />and this movie is rated R????? this should not of even been not rated.<br /><br />we think that diablo would be crying his eyes out laughing at this stupid movie.<br /><br />this is a movie that would have been done by a Church.<br /><br />theses "actors" are never gonna become nothing because this movie.
|
negative
|
It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films. <br /><br />I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.
|
negative
|
Okay, I rented this movie because of the director...he has made some interesting flicks in the past (if you haven't seen Waxork you are missing a fun ride). Anyway, I had my doubts about this movie from the beginning but I decided to suck it up and give it a look. It's bad. Very bad. If you haven't seen the movie and don't mind spoilers read ahead. First of all, the old saying 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' applies here. The box for this flick seems to indicate that Jill is the stone fox with long hair with highlights. The back of the box has a cool shot of the red-leather Jill and some other shots. The description makes you want to rent the movie because it SOUNDS good. You start watching it and suddenly you find out that the movie takes place (inexplicably) in 1977. Jill is a total dog who is not the girl on the cover. The movie is not quite as predictable as you would think...and that's not a good thing. Characters do so many stupid things without any modicum of motivation...it's embarrassing to watch. 10 minutes before the end of the movie Dolph and another lady have sex for no good reason. Also, what was the point of having Dolph kill this other lady in cold blood who had been helping him. Anthony Hickox the director should have seen a stinker when he read the script. Had it been set in the underworld of the new milennium and made the characters halfway intelligent it might have been decent. To set it in the 70's makes no sense and has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Avoid it!
|
negative
|
Life Stinks (1991) was a step below Mel Brooks other productions. He stars as a rich man who wages an insane wager with his "friends". Brooks claims that he can life like a homeless man for a month. His shocked and amused friends accept this unusual wager. During his "stay" in the Bowery, he meets a bunch of odd homeless people, one of them catches his fancy (Lesley-Ann Warren). They strike up a friendship as she teaches him the many tricks she learned whilst living on the street. Can Mr. Brooks survive on his own without the luxuries of being filthy rich? Will he win this unorthodox wager? Who are his true friends? Find out when you watch LIFE STINKS to find out!<br /><br />This film has been slagged unfairly. Sure it's not a classic like his earlier films but it's still enjoyable. I liked the way Mel Brooks pays homage to Charles Chaplin in this film. If you have watched Chaplin's earlier silent films then you'll get the humor as well.<br /><br />Recommended for Mel Brooks fans.
|
positive
|
Answer: despite that fact that this film was written and directed by a woman, your ex is creepier, nastier, and more irrational than any zombie that ever lurched the earth.<br /><br />The acting in this independent film actually is quite good, despite the less-than-wonderful script. It takes a pretty good actor to deliver an overwritten, clichéd line and make it sound vaguely believable. Young Anthony de Marco, as Jake, puts in a particularly good performance.<br /><br />Fortunately, the plot of this film is a lot better than the dialog. Try it, especially if you're not a monster fan. This is NOT a horror flick. Even though all the adult females are pretty monstrous, and although all the adult males act as if their brains were eaten in some earlier zombie film, "Jake's Closet" is suitable for mature adults.<br /><br />The whole, this time, is much better than the sum of its parts.
|
positive
|
The Rookie kept me smiling from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid played the role to perfection. The little boy that plays his son was fantastic. He made this a father-son movie to remember. The messages are good ones. Follow your dreams. Failing at the pursuit is alright as long as you try. The excitement is palpable. I believe this movie will be a classic.
|
positive
|
First of all, i have nothing against Christianity. i believe, every person has the right to believe what he or she chooses. But i cannot imagine how dumb a person has to be to believe this! What a waste of believers' money. They'd better use it to feed some starving families in the third world countries. I don't want to talk about talk acting or plot of this "movie", because I couldn't find any of those in this. Story's simple - two reporters, one (A) is atheist, the other (B) for some sake has abandoned religion. B regains his confidence in religion and teaches A a lesson - believe in Christ or go to hell. This message appears after like ten minutes and keeps repeating to the end of the movie. People, do not believe the rating of this "movie", read reviews first. I didn't and wasted an hour of my life :( PS: Why is it classified as sci-fi? Because of those few weird sounds and a bit of bright light from the sky? PPS: U.F.O. = Satan's evil doings? That's a new one :)
|
negative
|
Yowsa! If you REALLY want some ACTION, check out the babes and bombs on this non-stop thriller! Veteran star MARTIN SHEEN leads a trio of supermodels on a mission to stop nuclear terrorism... but director Dean Hamilton doesn't let this heavy plotline get in the way of massive doses of TEENSY-SWIMSUIT scenes, jiggly beach jogs, hubba-hubba hot tubs and the like! Want action? You'll get more of it here than in PEARL HARBOR. Want babes? You'll get an eyeful every two minutes. Want more? Go out and BUY THIS VIDEO! Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa! That's some mighty spicy meatballs!!!
|
positive
|
when the gilmore girls started in Germany i did not want to watch them because for me it was just something which was not unique. it was a series and i even did not know someone in it. later on, i realized that edward hermann is part of the cast of overboard (a movie, i absolutely adore). i had to watch it once with a friend and never stopped since. it's just fun. you have the feeling that it is okay to have sex before being married and it's okay to be a coffee junkie and to eat unhealthy stuff all the time. i do not do these things all the time but when i do these things i feel a little bit like a gilmore girl. even my boyfriend started to watch them and that tells something. from season to season it got better with the scripts and the stories. they have a open mind and by being different from every other show, you want to be like them.
|
positive
|
The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.<br /><br />Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.
|
negative
|
I really enjoyed this movie.I was fifteen when this movie came out and I could relate. This will be a movie I would show my kids to let them know, the feelings they are having are normal. It is funny to see how we could be so devestated by things at such a young age..who knew that we would bounce back....again and again....Great movie!!!!
|
positive
|
As I understand it, after the Chinese took over Hong Kong, the infamous Cat. 3 Hong Kong movies kind of disappeared. At least until now, and what an amazing movie this one is. I knew it was a rough crime drama going in, but being the first Cat. 3 I've purchased that's been made recently, I wasn't sure what to expect.<br /><br />A Cambodian hit-man goes to Hong Kong to knock off the wife of a judge, who is also a lawyer. Turns out, the Judge made the arrangements for the hit-man, because she was divorcing the judge, and threatening to take all his money. This is all known within the first ten minutes, so nothing is being given away. After the hit, the cops locate the hit-man pretty fast, but in trying to arrest him, several police officers and civilians are killed. He eludes the police and now the race is on to catch the guy, before he escapes back to Cambodia. This is a movie that never stops, and hardly gives the viewer a chance to catch their breath. Yes, it is very violent and intense, many cops are killed, as the hit-man proves very very hard to track, and take down when they do locate him. Along the way, the hit-man in trying to hide in a dump, finds a women being raped and mistreated by some man. He helps her, and saves her from the guy, and she persuades the hit-man to take her along with him in his escape. I loved this movie, it's like a roller-coaster that just keeps moving and moving at high speed, as one incident leads to another, and the police at times are just as bad or worse as the hit-man. The acting is exceptionally good, and the location filming and photography is at time breathtaking. There's no let up in this movie, not even with the very very incredible ending. The ending is pretty much unbelievable, and also a fitting end to all the action and violence. Yes, the violence is brutal at times, but this is a very no nonsense crime drama, that will knock your socks off. "Dog Eat Dog" definitely needs a more widespread release, including an R1 release for sure. Great movie, highly recommended.
|
positive
|
One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film.
|
negative
|
I had the pleasure of seeing this short film at the Miami film festival this past Saturday and let me just say I was astounded. It was the only film out of the whole program that I loved. It is beautifully shot, composed, edited, acted and written. After the screening I saw the director at a party and asked him what he was doing next. He said that he was working on finding financing for the feature version of the short. He described some scenes to me. It sounded like the kind of first film that launches the greats into the industry. If you ever get a chance to see this short I highly recommend taking it. Hats off to star crossed.
|
positive
|
I cannot say that Aag is the worst Bollywood film ever made, because I haven't seen every Bollywood film, but my imagination tells me that it could well be.<br /><br />This film seems like an attempt at artistic suicide on behalf of the director, and I for one be believe he has been successful in his mission. No A-list actor outside of this film would risk sharing the same billing as him for all the humiliation this film is bound to carry with it.<br /><br />But lets not just blame the director here, there is the cinematographer, who looks like he's rehearsing for the amateur home movie maker of the year award. There is the over dramatic score, that hopes to carry you to the next scene. The lighting man, who must have been holding a cigarette in one hand and light bulb on pole in the other, and hoping that the flame burning off the cigarette would add to that much needed light in every scene. And, of course the actors! Some of them are by no means newcomers, else all could be forgiven here. The ensemble of actors in Aag were put together to promote a new beginning and dimension to the re-make of India's most loved movie of all time, 'Sholay'. One must not forget that these actors were not forced in to this film, they are A-list and willing participants to something that, let's face it would surely have had high and eager public expectation??? So it begs the question, Amitabh aside (for now), did the other actors really believe their performances even attempted to better the original? Did Amitabh Bachchan read the script and believe that people would remember his dialogue in this farcical abomination of a film? Don't be stupid, of course he didn't, this was a demonstration to the public of how much money talks hence can make actors walk.<br /><br />I truly hope everyone involved is satisfied with what is truly a vulgar attempt to remake a classic film, which only succeeds in polluting everyone's mind when they watch the original.
|
negative
|
I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.
|
negative
|
Oh My God, this is so idiotic. Completely pointless, offensive, and repulsive. Why do the writers have such a problem with actually getting Zoey and Chase together we all want them too! in normal shows, there's actually MORE THAN ONE plot conflict in the show, wow, what a concept. also, you cant even tell the Zoey 101 episodes apart from each other because the same thing happens every time. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. it's like a shampoo bottle. and the end of the movie, omg again. so pointless NOTHING HAPPENS. it's like they specifically designed it so that the movie could fit between any two episodes of the show and the show would go completely unchanged after the movie plot.
|
negative
|
This movie makes a promising start and then gets very confused and muddled. Kamal Hasan has made a lot of effort in getting the period look right, pity he did not spend more time on the plot. Most of the small characters in the movie show up for no particular reason.<br /><br />Overall very disappointing, I would recommend avoiding this movie.
|
negative
|
I can imagine what happened for this film to come into being: a bunch of studio guys are sitting around, drinking gin-and-tonic, maybe a joint, and one of them comes up with the idea that it would be great if they could find a film that would bridge the generation gap, which at that time was about as far apart as Archie Bunker and Mick Jagger. Something that both college-age rebels and their parents would find equally interesting-- for different reasons, perhaps, but still, a ticket is a ticket. What interested hippies? Asia, philosophy, pacifism, and wild sets and costumes. What interested their parents? Musicals, eye candy, a feel-good script, and nostalgia. Very well, then, "Lost Horizon", the old classic, as a musical, in color. Can't miss, right? It was a bomb. Lost Horizon, by James Hilton, is perhaps less than a classic, but not a bad novel. In broad terms, he sketches out a utopian society in Shangri-la, "The Valley of the Blue Moon", near Tibet, inhabited by peacefully contented villagers who serve an abbey of <i>very</i> long-lived monks. Intruding into paradise is a Gilligan's Island-like planeful of outsiders (a veteran of WWI, a missionary, etc.) each with their own spin on the situation -- what plot there is concerns the reaction of each of them to being presented with a choice to live in paradise, or try to return to the tumult of the Twentieth Century. Taken on its own terms, it's gentle, pop-lit fluff, presenting Hilton's own conservative British views in "Oriental" dress, as exotic and as familiar as a fortune cookie. As captive honored guests of the monks, the castaways are forbidden to leave the valley, but never pressed into work or prayer (not that the monks do too much of that themselves), treated royally, and given simple, yet luxurious accomodations --who'd want to escape? In this Middle American Heaven-on-Earth, the monks are both cultured and wise, the climate is warm, the food is plentiful and tasty, the villagers are picturesque nonentities and nothing ever changes. The nuns are chaste, but encouraged to look pretty, and even flirt a bit ( the reason given is one of the most hilariously inaccurate explanations of Tantric Sex I've ever read). Even their religion is nonthreatening: revealed as a best-of-both worlds blend of Christianity and Buddhism, there's little to offend any but the staunchest fundamentalist or the oddballs out there who actually knew something about Tibet (which in the early Thirties was a very small number).<br /><br />As a Capra film focussing on the adventure/character interplay angles it was enchanting; and perhaps Steven Spielburg could have made it fly, if he'd been around. As an early-Seventies Hollywood product, the adventure was over too quickly, and the updated roster of characters too bland, to make much of an impression. Deprived of the sketchy, suggestive qualities of classic B&W, the monastery resembles a de luxe beauty spa in white and pale blue, and while at least some of the monks' robes tried for historical accuracy, most of the rest of the inmates looked as if on their way to a morning massage and fango bath, with a couple of holes of golf in the afternoon. Maybe Stephan Sondheim could have restored some grit to the story, playing up the very real conflict inside each character's reaction; just five years afterwards, Brian Eno would have captured the tranquil atmosphere to a T; instead, Bert Bacherach and Hal David were given the job of writing the songs, which marry Muzak-like melodies with some of the clunkiest New Agey lyrics ever penned. Quite naturally for the time, every song calls for a dance number, which range from the merely forgettable to the completely boring, and so is the script, which has not one line worth quoting.<br /><br />Tie-ins with this movie were legion -- there were everything from cookbooks to posters planned to promote this film, and such was the hype that I actually went out and bought the sountrack album. Just about the only thing good I can say about it is that it made enough of an impression on me to write this review completely from memory nearly thirty years after -- the next month I read Aldous Huxley, bought a copy of the Bardo Thadol, and hence learned about real Tibetan culture. Moan.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
REIGN OVER ME (2007) *** Adam Sandler, Don Cheadle, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, Mike Binder, Jonathan Banks, Rae Allen, Paula Newsome. At times affecting and at times middling dramedy about a thoroughly depressed man who lost his family on 9/11 (Sandler in his best role since "Punch-Drunk Love") who winds up re-united with his old college roommate and friend (Cheadle continuing to do impressive work with every role to date), a well-to-do dentist who seems to have it all family, wealth, happiness but really sees an ally in freedom with his troubled friend's own personal life offerings. Written and directed by Binder (who co-stars as Sandler's former-best friend and acting accountant) with equal parts humor and genuine heartache the film works best when the two stars share the screen until the last act falls into an almost movie-of-the-week treacle with to tidy a solution to the matters at hand.
|
positive
|
`Shadow Magic' recaptures the joy and amazement of the first movie audiences. It also shows the power of film in its ability to bring the world a little closer, overcome cultural barriers and to preserve ourselves for generations yet to come. Certainly, anyone who truly loves the art of the motion picture will enjoy this film. It's a great first effort by writer/director Ann Hu, who will hopefully have many films to follow.
|
positive
|
What a joke. I am watching it on Channel 1 and I think watching paint dry is much more entertaining. What happened to Caspar Van Dien that got him roped into this nightmare. Terrible acting, very boring plot and terrible direction. It so terrible, it's funny. It's suppose to be full of suspense, but it more a comedy. If you want to see terrible acting, ridiculous script writing and sub-par plot, check this movie out. If I was Van Dien, I would not only ask for my 10% from my agent, but fire the bastard in the process. What a turkey. It's not even fit to be on MST 3K!! It would be a good movie to cure you insomnia. I especially love the part where Van Dien is throw overboard and then makes it back in just a few minutes! I can only image that this was written by non-union writers taking advantage of the writer's strike. What a horrible movie!!!
|
negative
|
How do you make a totally unappealing movie out of a story by one of America's most famous authors? Watch this film and find out. Maybe I am overrating author Carson McCullers, but I was impressed by "The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter" and was hoping for something memorable here, too. Forget it.<br /><br />Vanessa Redgrave looks like a man with her short haircut and clothing. I never found her much to get excited about in almost any movie, anyway. Rod Steiger as a preacher? How insulting is that? Unlikable characters, one after the other. Well, maybe that's the book, too, and I am being unfair to this film. I am not familiar with the story other than what I saw on screen and this was so unappealing a movie that I could never recommend it to anyone.<br /><br />It's just one backwards person after another in a backward town. Outside of some nice cinematography here and there, there is nothing to recommend. How anyone could sit through 100 minutes of this is amazing.<br /><br />I didn't even go into how bad this is directed. There is good news: this was the only film Simon Cowell directed.
|
negative
|
In my line of work, I occasionally get contacted by independent filmmakers who are trying to publicize their film. When I can, I take a look at these low-budget films and often they make me think that the future of Hollywood is going to the dogs. Once in a while, though, there is a film that is born of pure passion and desire, as if created for the purpose of reminding the film industry that good movies are still possible. The short film B R O K E N, directed by Alex Ferrari, is a genuine surprise and worth a second look.<br /><br />Clocking in at a scant 20 minutes, B R O K E N tries to tell a compelling (but surreal) story with almost no back story. The audience is plopped down in the middle of the action with no clue as to what is happening. A young woman (Samantha Jane Polay) awakens from a dream to hear a gunshot and is subsequently abducted from her home. When she awakes, she is surrounded by a group of mercenary thugs that look like they would be at home in a comic book. These nasty guys and girls are larger than life. They are all guns and knives. There is no way out.<br /><br />The kicker here is that, despite being a low budget film it doesn't play like one. From the very beginning, the feeling is that B R O K E N has been shot, edited, and produced by professionals. It looks like something Quentin Tarantino might have done on his day off when he was jamming with the Wachowski brothers. The film is sharp and cool, it looks good and it feels like something big.<br /><br />The acting is much better than I usually see in these smaller films. Polay and Paul Gordon (who plays the head killer, Duncan) were well chosen. As two of the few speaking roles in the film, it is up to them to carry the film. No special effects, no matter how good, would have saved this film from bad acting. Thankfully, Polay manages to convey true fear and Gordon manages to come off as a real psycho. Some of the more limited roles seem to be filled by lesser talent, but it hardly shows.<br /><br />The downside to B R O K E N is that it's only 20 minutes long. The story ends with a Twilight Zone twist that seems a bit contrived and is hardly subtle. Watching it, I felt like I was supposed to have some epiphany, but there was only a feeling that it was much more mundane than I had hoped it would be. The film tries hard to be one of those puzzles that leaves audiences talking for hours at the local coffee shop, but it comes off as unsatisfying. I keep thinking that this is the first 20 minutes of a longer film.<br /><br />MY RATING: 8 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Which do you think the average person would know more/less about: Iranian cinema or Iranian football? Interestingly, the two come to the forefront of controversial Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi's latest film entitled 'Offside', a tale that uses football or access to football as a backdrop for a series of scenes revolving around one's right to do something or go somewhere and an individual's right to extend that courtesy if and when they'd like to. The odd thing is, you don't come away from Offside having learnt about Iranian football or too much about Iranian cinema (unless it's an education in Panahi's controversial style), but you do come away feeling enlightened, that at least someone from Iran has taken a controversial issue that is clearly still very much in force in a nation like Iran, and is willing to present it to an international audience rather than exploit it.<br /><br />I can remember the 2006 World Cup, I'm sure many people can. It was the summer after my initial year out at university and after the slog that was my first year, a summer of World Cup football acted as a nicely timed tonic. Needless to say, I saw practically every game bar the ones they show simultaneously with the other ones at the very end of the group stages so that to avoid incidences as seen in Spain '82 when it was thought West Germany and Austria transpired to get a result between them that would see them both through at the expense of Algeria.<br /><br />Anyone in Britain that was watching the BBC's broadcast of the Iran Mexico game, both nations' first of the tournament, may remember that at the top of the show, the BBC's football anchorman Gary Lineker let off a snide comment to introduce the match. It went something like: 'We've seen giants Germany, England, Argentina and Holland play but now we get to see.........Mexico and Iran battle it out'. The emphasis on the latter two being inferior was clear and that maybe watching them was a chore. It's a shame because there are people, and films like Offside present them, who are really willing to see Iran play to the point where they risk their well-being to achieve it and it's sad when people in a position of power dismiss what they deem 'inferior' when there are others who'd do anything to have the chance to otherwise engage.<br /><br />When immediately thinking of the words 'Iran', 'football' and 'World Cup', my mind flies back to the France '98 game between said nation and America. Here is a film about a World Cup game of sorts involving Iran but where some or indeed most Iranian filmmakers may well have opted to present a tale revolving around Iran's famous victory over The United States and what that meant to them, director Panahi chooses to look at what goes on behind the scenes and presents a story from the stands as women are barred from football matches and are not allowed to live the ecstasy of winning a game of immense magnitude. You can imagine a heavy handed film detailing Iran's 'victory' as a lumbering propaganda film designed to exploit as they 'defeat' a Western power or 'enemy' at a sport they perhaps were not expected to do so in.<br /><br />A couple of films that spring to mind when it comes to beating the unbeatable at their own game are 2001 Indian film 'Lagaan', in which the Indian peasants defeat the ruling British at cricket. Similalry, 2005's 'The Game of Their Lives' sees the Americans defeat the English at a football match only this time in the 1950 World Cup. The differences between these films and Offside are immense; Offside is looking at a situation behind a state's mentality and dares to explore an essence of Feminism as the girls, trying to see their beloved Iran defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup, are rounded up like animals and kept in a crude purgatory mere feet from a barred window that would allow them to see the game. The reasoning is to do with the foul language the men 'may', not will, but 'may' use during the game. The film presents Iran as so incompetent that they cannot take away a man's right to swear and ban the bad language but must ban a woman's right to see the game all together it is no wonder Panahi's film was itself banned in Iran.<br /><br />But Panahi remembers to include what makes the rule so crazy in the first place by frequently allowing his female characters to both smoke cigarettes and use mobile phones, two things the doctors and scientists will have you think are far more dangerous to the human body/mind than hearing a little bit of foul language at a football match. Panahi pays special attention to the title of his film 'Offside' which itself is a ruling within football detailing when an 'attacker' is 'caught' trying to gain an advantage in the field of play. The parallels run with the womens' position in the film as these advancing (supposedly without right) individuals are caught trying to put one over the opposition team; that being the state itself.<br /><br />I think Offside is one of the better films to come out of the Middle East and surrounding Gulf area that I've seen. It's a tense but humbling film about people who do not carry any acting history according to the IMDb and thus, the acting is raw and real adding that quaint neo-realist aura to it all. The immediate ending is haunting and the constant verbal battle between the male soldiers and female wrong-doers who dared to defy the state is wonderful. I also think for anyone to actually dislike the film for the reasons I've mentioned shows a distinct level of callous, either that or you work in the Iranian government.
|
positive
|
John Carpenter's brilliantly suspenseful flick is a great fusion of Sci-Fi and horror, adopting the classic body-swap theme and taking it to the extreme. A remake of the Howard Hawks produced 1951 original, Carpenter keeps the Cold-War themes of paranoia and trust as a backdrop of alien takeover and impending doom amidst madness and the isolation of the Antarctic setting. Carpenter's direction as always is excellent as his camera glides through the lonely world of the characters whose inhabitable environment is about to be corrupted by the primordial fear of body takeover. But here and much like the work of David Cronenberg, Carpenter doesn't hold back on the incident, as through some fantastic special effects we are witness to some insane moments of surreal gore. However, he never loses touch with the human side of the story, as in the face of everything shocking happening in front of us, we are left with perceived notions of trust and suspicion.<br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
GBS wrote his own screen adaptation of this Nobel Prize winning play but didn't live to see it produced (he had won an Oscar in 1938 for his brilliant adaptation of his 1914 play PYGMALION). When Otto Preminger mounted (produced and directed) this production in 1957, seven years after Shaw's death, he had noted British author Graham Greene do the adaptation and it was a solid choice.<br /><br />Taking a cue from Shaw's own screenplay, Greene uses material from the stage Epilogue to create a framing device to meld the two acts of the play (one early and one late in Joan's story) into a unified and most satisfying whole. Where on stage the shift in tone is buffered with an intermission, here it works just as well with a return to KING Charles Balois's bedchamber (where the man Joan put on the throne is dreaming of the events which led to his current situation), and more material from Shaw's Epilogue - the introduction of the shade of John Gielgud's Warwick (the English "king maker").<br /><br />The majority of the language is solid GBS, and the performances from stalwart Shauvians (like Felix Aymler's Inquisitor or Harry Andrews' de Stogumber) to relative newcomers (the film established Jean Seberg's career) are first rate. It may jar some, only familiar with Richard Widmark's many movie villains, to see him playing a frail and somewhat silly Dauphin, but the performance - oddly top billed - is professional, even if arguably miscast.<br /><br />The symbolism of the opening credits and the director's choice to use the visual vocabulary of black and white filming all serve Shaw and the story well. Go in expecting quality entertainment and you won't be disappointed.
|
positive
|
This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.<br /><br />This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.<br /><br />I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.
|
positive
|
I think Downey was perhaps inspired by French new-wave.<br /><br />Who wasn't?<br /><br />Unfortunately, what he ended up creating here was more along the lines of crackhead new-wave.<br /><br />A synapse is obviously a terrible thing to lose and Downey appears to have lost plenty. <br /><br />Just say no, indeed. In more ways than one. Including to watching this film.<br /><br />I couldn't bear it after a while and began fast forwarding through it. It would have been wiser to have just skipped it altogether.
|
negative
|
The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.
|
negative
|
When you think 'Oliver Stone' the movies that come to mind would be his biggest and most controversial ones like Platoon, JFK, Born On The Fourth Of July, or Natural Born Killers. Talk Radio usually doesn't. It's a pretty small movie, actually. More than half the movie takes place with Barry Champlain at his radio station talking into his mike. But believe me, this is one of Oliver Stone's greatest movies and should NOT be missed.<br /><br />Above all things it's a character study. Barry Champlain is a rude, self-destructive, risk-taking talk radio show host who says one too many things and starts to get in trouble with his boss, his lover(s), his fans, and even some Nazis. He doesn't like his audience and callers and a lot of them don't like him (eithor that or do like him, but have no idea why). But, at the end he says on his show: "I guess we're stuck with each other."<br /><br />See Talk Radio, even if you don't like Oliver Stone movies. You might be surprised. I sure was.<br /><br />My Rating: 10/10
|
positive
|
Though I strongly feel that SITR is the best Gene Kelly movie, but this a pretty good one. I liked the music and the dancing and the ending on how Gene got the girl. My favorite part though without a doubt is Gene's dance with his alter ego. I love watching two Gene Kelly's for the price of one. It shows what talent Mr. Kelly really was. It is a movie that I think that everyone should watch at least once in their life time. So you have not seen it go out and find to watch it today! I'm sure that everyone out there has a Gene Kelly friend that has this movie in their collection. So go over to their house and pop some popcorn and enjoy!
|
positive
|
I rented Zero Day from the local video store last week. I had never heard of the film and I had my reservations about it. Just from looking at the box I knew the film was an Indie film and therefore the quality was going to be less than a mainstream film. <br /><br />I can tell you that after I finished watching Zero Day I immediately started it from the beginning again. The film was clearly following the basic outline of what happened at Columbine High School of April of 1999, but what struck me was how believable the two lead actors were. My first time through watching this film I wasn't entirely sure if what I was watching were actual tapes left behind by the shooters at Columbine. In the back of my mind I knew what I was watching could not be real but at the same time the acting was so convincing you had to keep giving your head a shake. <br /><br />Is the film disturbing? Absolutely! Are you going to see things that will make you question the merit of the film? Probably. I think what most people will find disturbing is they will actually have feelings for the two lead characters, Calvin and Andre (Played by Cal Robertson and Andre Keuck). Why is that problematic for some people? Calvin and Andre are planning a massacre at their high school. I know for myself, I felt an immense sadness for Andre and Calvin. I had empathy for them because their lives had come to such a horrific point. They had fallen so deeply through cracks that they had begun a journey down a road which could have been stopped, if only people around them had taken notice to their plight. <br /><br />Zero Day is a phenomenal film. It gives you an up close and personal look to events that most of us will only ever see the conclusion to on the news. It leaves you thinking about the lives involved. And it leaves you perplexed how people get to this point. A week after seeing this film, I still think about it.<br /><br />Those of you who have not seen Zero Day please keep in mind the following: The film is an independent with little to no budget and the film is shot on camcorders. The material in the film is disturbing. This is not mainstream Hollywood and there is no happy ending. <br /><br />But if you can put all that aside, Zero Day is a film that will stick with you and just maybe help you to open your eyes a little.
|
positive
|
I thought this movie was pretty good!OK, so maybe it had a few scenes that could make people think of other horror movies, but i have seen a lot more pathetic movies that got much higher ratings than this! Many movies nowadays are remade to a more modern version and there's nothing wrong with that, it keeps the story alive. i don't think this movie was pathetic at all and i'm not just saying that because i'm a major Chad Michael Murray fan, but because i enjoyed it. i was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie and my friends and i really enjoyed it and we were talking about it the whole way home! I would tell my other friends to watch this movie. i'm not saying it's the best movie that's ever hit the box office but it's a lot better than some people are describing it to be. Everyone has their own opinions so if you really want to know whether it's good or bad, watch it and then decide.
|
positive
|
I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.<br /><br />However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb "bottom 100" list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.<br /><br />Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.
|
negative
|
I think that just sums up this film. Watch it and you'll find out why. The acting of the lead character John Keem is really, really bad and he has no on screen charisma whatsoever. It's very funny because of this thought, as is the ending where Keem beheads the bad guy despite the fact he is unarmed and has surrendered. Brilliant!
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.